This case involves a rectification order issued by the UPC Milan Local Division concerning a clerical error in a previous order. The order, dated July 22, 2026, contained a mistake in the value of a counterclaim for revocation. Initially, it was recorded as EUR 1,850,000, but the correct value should be EUR 1,875,000. Both parties, Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH and Danieli & C. S.P.A., were notified about the intended rectification and expressed no objections. The decision was made by presiding judge Pierluigi Perrotti.
UPC Publication Date:07/28/2026
Summarized:07/28/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:Milan (IT) Local Division
Parties:Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v. Danieli & C. S.P.A.
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:N/A
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Rectification of clerical error
The Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court issued an order to stay proceedings in the case between Beko and Dolby regarding the infringement of patent EP 3 605 534. Both parties have reached a settlement agreement and have agreed to withdraw their claims once obligations are fulfilled. The court granted the stay as requested jointly by the parties, allowing them to inform the court once the settlement obligations are complete. If needed, either party can request to resume the proceedings.
UPC Publication Date:07/28/2026
Summarized:07/28/2026
Type:Appeal
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant v. Dolby International AB
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 3 605 534
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Settlement AgreementJoint Request for Stay
In a case involving Dolby International and Beko regarding Patent EP 3 605 534, the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court ordered a stay of proceedings for both the infringement action and the counterclaim for revocation. This decision follows a settlement agreement between the parties, with Dolby and Beko agreeing to withdraw their respective claims after fulfilling the settlement obligations. The stay was ordered upon the joint request of both parties, as permitted under Rule 295(d) of the Rules of Procedure.
UPC Publication Date:07/28/2026
Summarized:07/28/2026
Type:Appeal
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş, Elektronik Plant v. Dolby International AB
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 3 605 534
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Settlement agreement reached by partiesJoint request for stay
On July 27, 2026, the Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court addressed a revocation action concerning European patent no EP 3 802 413 B1. The dispute involved SYPOX GmbH, which claimed SME status, and Topsoe A/S. A central issue was whether Topsoe could access an unredacted Investment Agreement (D36) that might refute SYPOX's claimed status. SYPOX had withdrawn the unredacted document from the proceedings, opting to rely on a redacted version (D36R). The court agreed, declaring D36 as not part of the evidence and dismissing Topsoe's access requests to D36 due to insufficient legal interest and an emphasis on confidentiality.
UPC Publication Date:07/27/2026
Summarized:07/28/2026
Type:Revocation
Court:Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
Parties:SYPOX GmbH v. Topsoe A/S
Winning Party:SYPOX GmbH
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 802 413 B1
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Confidentiality concernsLack of legal interest to access unredacted document
The Intermediate Court of Munich has issued an order granting Reinhausen GmbH the right to inspect and secure evidence against Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. Reinhausen claims that the defendant's product exhibited at a trade fair in Berlin infringes on their European Patent EP 3 427 283 B1. The court allows Reinhausen to dismantle, photograph, and electrically measure parts of the product in question, in presence of a bailiff and experts, to determine if a patent violation occurred.
UPC Publication Date:07/27/2026
Summarized:07/27/2026
Type:Provisional measures
Court:Munich (DE) Local Division
Parties:Reinhausen GmbH v. Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
Winning Party:Reinhausen GmbH
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 427 283 B1
Patent Title:Selector for Load Tap Changer and Load Tap Changer with Load Switch and Selector
Grounds for decision:Suspicion of Patent Infringement
In a case before the Munich Local Chamber of the Unified Patent Court, a legal order was issued to allow an inspection and evidence preservation relating to a patent dispute involving Reinhausen GmbH and Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. The disputed patent, European Patent No. EP 3 427 283 B1, pertains to a selector for a load tap changer. During the CWIEME exhibition in Berlin, Reinhausen requested an inspection of a product exhibited by Shanghai Huaming, identified as a potential infringement of their patent.
UPC Publication Date:07/27/2026
Summarized:07/27/2026
Type:Provisional measures
Court:Munich (DE) Local Division
Parties:Reinhausen GmbH v. Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
Winning Party:Reinhausen GmbH
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 427 283 B1
Patent Title:Selector for a Load Tap Changer
Grounds for decision:Inspection and Evidence PreservationPotential Patent Infringement
This case was held in the Local Chamber Munich of the Unified Patent Court between Reinhausen GmbH and Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd. Reinhausen GmbH, the owner of the European Patent EP 3 427 284 B1, filed for an inspection order regarding a load tap changer device exhibited by the defendant at a trade show in Berlin, suspecting patent infringement. The court granted the inspection and evidence preservation request without prior notification to the defendant, allowing technical experts to examine the device, dismantle it if necessary, and document the process to determine if it infringes on the plaintiff's patent.
UPC Publication Date:07/27/2026
Summarized:07/27/2026
Type:Provisional measures
Court:Munich (DE) Local Division
Parties:Reinhausen GmbH v. Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
Winning Party:Reinhausen GmbH
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 427 284 B1
Patent Title:Load Tap Changer
Grounds for decision:Patent Infringement SuspicionArt. 60 EPGÜRule 192, 199 RoP
The Unified Patent Court in Munich issued an order related to European Patent No. EP 3 427 284 B1, owned by Reinhausen GmbH, concerning a load tap changer. The order allowed for the inspection and evidence preservation on the respondent's exhibition stand at the CWIEME fair. The decision permitted the dismantling and analysis of the load tap changer model 'DET-24kV' shown by Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd at the exhibition. The process included photographing, sampling of documentation, and potential seizure of certain materials. The order specified roles for experts and procedural representatives to ensure proper conduct of the inspection.
UPC Publication Date:07/27/2026
Summarized:07/27/2026
Type:Provisional measures
Court:Munich (DE) Local Division
Parties:Reinhausen GmbH v. Shanghai Huaming Power Equipment Co., Ltd.
Winning Party:Reinhausen GmbH
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 427 284 B1
Patent Title:Load Tap Changer
Grounds for decision:Patent Infringement InvestigationEvidence Preservation Order
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court issued a procedural order regarding European Patent No. EP 3 079 153. Dolby International AB, the claimant, reached a settlement agreement with the defendants, Beko Germany GmbH and Arçelik A.Ş. The settlement covers all patent infringement and ancillary proceedings, including a counterclaim for revocation. As both parties requested a stay of proceedings, the court decided to stay the infringement action and the counterclaim immediately. An oral hearing scheduled for April 2027 may be canceled, pending any objections by the parties by July 30, 2026.
UPC Publication Date:07/27/2026
Summarized:07/27/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Parties:Dolby International AB v. Beko Germany GmbH, Arçelik A.Ş,
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 3 079 153
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Settlement between partiesJoint request for stay of proceedings
This case involves an appeal by WEPA Nederland B.V. concerning overpaid court fees related to a proceeding with Essity Hygiene and Health Aktiebolag over the preservation of evidence for the patent EP 3 289 139. The Local Division of The Hague originally allowed the preservation of evidence, leading WEPA to appeal. WEPA argued that they paid incorrect appeal fees, believing the fee should only be 5,000 EUR rather than the 14,600 EUR they paid. The Court of Appeal decided in favor of WEPA, determining that the correct fee was indeed 5,000 EUR since the value of the action was up to 500,000 EUR without additional value-based fees. Consequently, the court ordered a reimbursement of 9,600 EUR to WEPA.
UPC Publication Date:07/27/2026
Summarized:07/28/2026
Type:Appeal
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:WEPA NEDERLAND B.V. v. ESSITY HYGIENE AND HEALTH AKTIEBOLAG
Winning Party:WEPA Nederland B.V.
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 289 139
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Incorrect calculation of appeal fees based on fixed and value-based fee structure
The Düsseldorf Local Division of the Unified Patent Court issued an order related to the request for public access to documents in the case concerning European Patent No. EP 3 605 534. The request was filed by the public entity Vereenigde Octrooibureaux N.V. The request was opposed by the plaintiff, Dolby International AB, arguing that the request was vague and lacked a legitimate interest. While allowing limited access to the statement of claim, the court denied access to other documents, emphasizing the need to protect confidential information and maintain the integrity of ongoing parallel proceedings. The court determined that the public's interest did not override the need for confidentiality of the proceedings and business secrets involved.
UPC Publication Date:07/24/2026
Summarized:07/24/2026
Type:Generic
Court:Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Parties:Name not displayed for GDPR reasons. Represented by Bettina HERMANN v. Dolby International AB, Optoma Deutschland GmbH, Optoma Europe Ltd., Optoma Corporation
Winning Party:Dolby International AB
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 3 605 534
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Lack of legitimate interest by requesterProtection of confidentiality and business secretsIntegrity of ongoing parallel proceedings
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court ruled in favor of InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. against The Walt Disney Company and its affiliates, concerning the European Patent EP 2 449 782. The case centered on the alleged infringement of the patent, which relates to methods and apparatus for signaling intra prediction for large blocks in video encoders and decoders. A notable issue in the case was the Non-Disclosure Agreement (NDA) between the parties, which hindered the ability of one party to submit evidence. The court found that if a party fails to amend an NDA to allow necessary evidence to be submitted and examined, the court may infer that the required steps were completed, as per established judgements (Huawei v ZTE). Interdigital's claims targeted Disney's operations in the streaming sector, specifically their Disney+ service using the HEVC standard.
UPC Publication Date:07/24/2026
Summarized:07/24/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Parties:InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc. v. The Walt Disney Company, The Walt Disney Company (Benelux) B.V, Disney Interactive, Disney Electronic Content, Inc., Disney Platform Distribution, Inc, , The Walt Disney Company Limited, Disney Enterprises, Inc., Disney Streaming Services LLC, Disney Media & Entertainment Distribution LLC, Disney Entertainment & Sports LLC, BAMTech LLC
Winning Party:InterDigital VC Holdings, Inc.
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 2 449 782
Patent Title:Methods and Apparatus for Signaling Intra Prediction for Large Blocks for Video Encoders and Decoders
Grounds for decision:InfringementFailure to amend NDA for evidence submission
The Court of First Instance of the Unified Patent Court adjudicated on a request made by Ter Meer Steinmeister & Partner, a German law firm, for access to certain pleadings and evidence from ongoing legal proceedings involving EP 3 689 383. The applicant sought access primarily due to interest as a legal advisor to pharmaceutical companies, emphasizing the need to inform clients about potential legal actions related to the patent.
UPC Publication Date:07/23/2026
Summarized:07/24/2026
Type:Application RoP262.1 (b)
Court:Brussels (BE) Local Division
Parties:2SEVENTY BIO, INC. v. (1) JOHNSON & JOHNSON v. (2) JANSSEN BIOTECH, INC. v. (3) JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICALS INC. v. (4) JANSSEN-CILAG INTERNATIONAL NV v. (5) JANSSEN PHARMACEUTICA NV v. (6) JANSSEN-CILAG NV v. (7) JANSSEN BIOLOGICS B.V. v. (8) JANSSEN-CILAG B.V. v. (9) JANSSEN-CILAG GMBH v. (10) JANSSEN-CILAG SAS v. (11) JANSSEN-CILAG SPA v. (12) JANSSEN-CILAG A/S v. (13) JANSSEN-CILAG AKTIEBOLAG v. (14) JANSSEN-CILAG FARMACEUTICA LDA. v. (15) LEGEND BIOTECH CORPORATION v. (16) LEGEND BIOTECH USA INC. v. (17) LEGEND BIOTECH IRELAND LIMITED; AND v. (18) LEGEND BIOTECH BELGIUM BV
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 3 689 383
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Public access to registerDirect legitimate interest requirement
This case involves a patent dispute between Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH and Danieli & C. S.P.A concerning European Patent EP'977. During an interim conference, both parties agreed to focus on claims 1, 3, 4, and 8, after the defendant's request to limit the scope of the infringement claim. The court adopted the defendant's feature breakdown of claim 1, which closely follows the literal wording of the claim. Furthermore, the court addressed auxiliary requests by asking the claimant to reduce them to five, promoting procedural efficiency. Settlement discussions have been explored but no agreement has been reached so far. The case is ongoing, with a focus on managing procedural aspects and refining the issues under dispute.
UPC Publication Date:07/22/2026
Summarized:07/28/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:Milan (IT) Local Division
Parties:Primetals Technologies Austria GmbH v. Danieli & C. S.P.A.
Winning Party:Unknown
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP'977
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Feature Breakdown of Claim 1Procedural EconomyCase Management
This legal order from the Court of Appeal of the Unified Patent Court involves Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. appealing a decision by the Local Division, which dismissed their infringement action and revoked their patent relating to a sleep position therapy device. The respondents, Philips and others, had contested the patent’s validity, filing a counterclaim for revocation, arguing lack of novelty and inventive step particularly in light of Japanese patent JP H03-49748. They succeeded in the first instance.
UPC Publication Date:07/22/2026
Summarized:07/23/2026
Type:Appeal
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v. Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips RS North America LLC, Respironics Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG
Winning Party:Koninklijke Philips N.V. et al.
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 2 437 696 B2
Patent Title:Wearable Position Therapy Device
Grounds for decision:Lack of NoveltyLack of Inventive Step
Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. appealed a decision from the Unified Patent Court's Local Division which dismissed its infringement claim against Koninklijke Philips N.V. and related entities and revoked its patent (EP 2 437 696 B2) entirely, based on lack of novelty and inventive step concerning a wearable position therapy device. Philips filed a counterclaim for revocation of the patent, challenging its validity. On appeal, Advanced Brain Monitoring filed additional auxiliary requests to amend the patent. The Court reserved judgment on the admissibility of these requests and denied Philips' request for an extension of the response deadline.
UPC Publication Date:07/22/2026
Summarized:07/23/2026
Type:Appeal
Court:Luxembourg (LU)
Parties:Advanced Brain Monitoring, Inc. v. Respironics Deutschland GmbH & Co. KG, Koninklijke Philips N.V., Philips RS North America LLC
Winning Party:Koninklijke Philips N.V. and Others
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP 2 437 696 B2
Patent Title:Wearable Position Therapy Device
Grounds for decision:Lack of noveltyLack of inventive step
The Unified Patent Court's Munich Central Division delivered a decision on a nullity action regarding European Patent EP 4 283 140 B1. The court found that certain claims (1, 2, 5, and 8 to 11) of the patent must be declared null and void. The decision focused on whether structural features of a device claim were novel, concluding that if a prior art device meets these structural criteria, the claim lacks novelty even if all technical effects are not realized in the same manner in the prior art. The court also addressed the issue of apparent clerical errors in prior art, stipulating that no such error is deemed apparent absent clear evidence recognizable by someone skilled in the art. The court partly upheld the nullity action, based on an overextension beyond the subject matter of the patent's first auxiliary request. The hearing's language was German.
UPC Publication Date:07/21/2026
Summarized:07/21/2026
Type:Revocation
Court:Munich (DE) Central Division - Section
Parties:Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH v. BAUSSMANN Collated Fasteners GmbH
Winning Party:Raimund Beck Nageltechnik GmbH
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 4 283 140 B1
Patent Title:Fastening Element from Wood and/or Wood-Based Materials
Grounds for decision:Lack of NoveltyUnallowable Extension of Subject Matter
This case involves a patent infringement action initiated by Keeex SAS against multiple defendants, including Adobe Systems and Open AI. The dispute centers on the modification of a security for costs previously set at 200,000 euros. Adobe requested to increase this security, citing new circumstances and arguing proportionality in accordance with procedural rules. Keeex opposed this modification, suggesting it was unnecessary and excessive, especially for a small enterprise (SME). The court referenced previous decisions and legal criteria, emphasizing that the SME status could influence the security amount but was not grounds to dispense with it. Ultimately, the court addressed the appropriateness of the security amount considering the specifics of the case, without automatically applying the maximum scale of recoverable costs.
UPC Publication Date:07/20/2026
Summarized:07/23/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:Paris (FR) Local Division
Parties:KEEEX SAS v. ADOBE INC., ADOBE SYSTEMS SOFTWARE IRELAND LIMITED, OPEN AI OPCO LLC, OPEN AI IRELAND LTD, TRUEPIC INC., JOINT DEVELOPMENT FOUNDATION PROJECTS LLC, COALITION FOR CONTENT PROVENANCE AND AUTHENTICITY (C2PA)
Winning Party:Keeex SAS
Counterclaim:Yes
Patent Number:EP2949070
Patent Title:N/A
Grounds for decision:Procedural rulesProportionalitySME status
In this procedural order from the Local Division of Düsseldorf of the Unified Patent Court, issued on July 20, 2026, the court addresses the issue of serving a statement of claim under The Hague Convention related to EP 2 593 025 B1. LiNA Medical AG, the claimant, had difficulty serving Defendants Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd., Mr. Sam Lee, and Eunitor GmbH because the competent Chinese authority reported that Defendants 1 and 2 refused to accept documents. The court, considering the refusal as a strong indication against any other service method, deems the steps taken so far as sufficient for good service under R. 275.2 RoP. The court orders public service by a notice posted or published, which is considered effective 30 days after posting. This ensures claimant's legal protection despite the defendants' refusal.
UPC Publication Date:07/20/2026
Summarized:07/23/2026
Type:Infringement
Court:Düsseldorf (DE) Local Division
Parties:LiNA Medical AG v. Tonglu Qianyan Medtech Co., Ltd., Name not displayed for GDPR reasons, Eunitor GmbH
Winning Party:LiNA Medical AG
Counterclaim:No
Patent Number:EP 2 593 025 B1
Patent Title:Not Provided
Grounds for decision:Defendants refused documentsR. 275.2 RoP allows alternative service method
Oxford Nanopore Technologies PLC ('Oxford') sought provisional measures against MGI Tech and others ('MGI') in respect of patent infringements relating to their 'Cyclone Devices'. Oxford claimed MGI infringed on four European patents by advertising and selling the products in various countries, requesting injunctive relief, sequestration, and information. On 30 June 2026, the court invited Oxford to amend its claims and provided timelines for document submissions. MGI filed for an extension to object due to technical access issues to case files, which the court rejected, stating the objections timeline was adequately considered. The refusal was based on balancing the hearing rights with the need for prompt remedies and preparation times for court members. There is no noted counterclaim, and the outcome is yet undetermined, as proceedings are ongoing with a possible oral hearing scheduled for August 2026.